Abstract bill of exchange liability does not exempt labor courts from determining employee's fault for property damage.

The Supreme Court quashed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The appellants argued that their bill of exchange liability was limited to their specific employment period and that the employer failed to prove adequate security for the store. The court ruled that while bill of exchange obligations are abstract, labor courts must still verify if the employee's liability for property loss aligns with their actual duties and the employer's contribution to the damage.